Critic shouldn't give away the plot of movie
As both a subscriber to The Evening Sun and a fairly regular moviegoer, I am always interested in reading the newspaper's critical reviews of current films.
In the past, Stephen Hunter, and now, Stephen Wigler, have presented perceptive analyses. However, they have also described in far too much detail the entire story lines and particular scenes.
Plots and memorable scenes should be discussed with discretion so that readers intending to see a film do not have to "skip" through the review, trying to avoid learning all there is to know about the story and special scenes.
Mr. Hunter, in his review of "The Crying Game," because one of the principal actors had been nominated for an Oscar, assumed that movie audiences would have instant name recognition, and he proceeded to describe a pivotal scene -- giving away the "surprise" element of the film.
Needless to say, this either lessened the desire to see a film, or it lessens the pleasure of watching the film as the story untolds.
While I did not agree with Mr. Wigler's 3 1/2 -star rating of the film "White," I found this movie to be well acted and entertaining.
Mr. Wigler managed to pique my interest during the first four paragraphs of his review, but the ensuing description of the plot included an excess of detail.
It is my understanding that other readers have expressed similar complaints.
Shouldn't a critic's review be concerned with the success or failure of the director's intentions, the quality of the acting, etc., and not primarily with the retelling of the story?
Is there a minimum space requirement that encourages reviewers to give away more than is appropriate?
Barbara Lader
Randallstown
Praise for bank
Bravo to the NationsBank company for agreeing to restore the splendid former Maryland National Bank building on Light Street.
And surely praise goes to Edward Gunts for his well written, perceptive analysis of the work, the appearance, and the final result, which will be a welcome note of decorative architecture for the city skyline in Baltimore.
His explanation of how the work is being done was most interesting.
Dorothea Apgar
Baltimore
Bottle deposit
Now that Mayor Kurt Schmoke has expressed his unhappiness over the filth in the city (The Evening Sun, Aug. 19), maybe he will consider a measure which will guarantee an improvement in the city's appearance -- a bottle-deposit law.
Bottles that are worth a nickel or a dime won't collect in vacant lots or gutters. There won't be broken glass on every sidewalk.
Kids will retrieve bottles for pocket change. People will donate them to raise money for charities, just as they do with aluminum cans. Most will turn them in at grocery stores to collect the deposit.
Other places with bottle-deposit laws (such as Maine and Vermont) are well on their way to becoming litter free.
Bob Maddox
Baltimore
Hidden driver
In addition to the motorist who cuts people off and races through red lights, we now have one (figure of speech -- I have seen more than several) who obscures his identity by covering his license plates with a gray plastic "protector."
These things must be illegal, and, if they are, why doesn't our alert constabulary take some action?
Perhaps they are in the process of cracking down, and the gray plate covers are simply proliferating faster than the law an catch up.
These mystery vehicles are sometimes equipped with dark gray windows which also obscure the driver's identity.
Indeed, they mask his or her presence, making it impossible for other motorists to get some clue as to these drivers' intentions through eye contact, which can be an important aid to safe driving.
Can we persuade the gendarmes to clean off these offending windows and license plates?
Frank Littleton
Baltimore
Health questions
In addition to the many questions about the universality of coverage in health care reform, managed care, choice of physician (and provider's freedom to accept a patient outside a system without incurring penalty), one may wonder what is specifically meant by "tough cost controls."
What is implied by "a cap" on spending? In a U.S. Public Health Service hospital, the budget would suddenly be cut in the last quarter of the fiscal year; a unit director would have to lay off well-trained newer employees.
Money would be restored next quarter, but those laid off would have gone elsewhere.
What does "tough cost control" mean in terms of actual care? Relatedly, how is it proposed to cut $10 billion from Medicare when the number of people over age 65 continues to grow?
Mary O. Styrt
Baltimore
Doing the wrong things about crime
Some years back, our family was taking an automobile trip when my pre-teen daughters began to rough-house in the back seat.
I asked the children to stop but the commotion continued. Finally, I pulled off the highway and brought the car to an abrupt stop.
I reached over the back seat, grabbed one of the girls and attempted to pull her over the front seat far enough to swat her behind.
In anger, I caused her to hit her head on the dome-light of the car. That unintended bump hurt her much more than the spanking.
The crime problem is one of the most serious we have in America. But as I observe the way many of us want to deal with it, it seems that we are reacting in about the same way I reacted to my daughters' misbehavior.
We seem more anxious to vent our anger than to get good results.
The president succeeded in moving a bill through Congress that would be tough on crime. It has millions of dollars for more prisons.
As approved, the length of many sentences would be increased with mandatory restrictions on parole. The House bill increases the crimes that could warrant the death sentence.
The bill languished before passage, however, because many Senate Republicans as well as Democrats want even more funds allocated for prisons, and less for crime prevention.
What's the reason for this trend? Is it because members of Congress really believe these things will decrease crime?
Or are members of Congress primarily concerned about trying to outdo one another in presenting a get-tough image?
In a recent press conference, Republican gubernatorial candidate Helen Bentley vowed that, if elected, she would bar criminals convicted of violent crime from being eligible for parole. A second crime of violence would require a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
Gubernatorial candidates Parris Glendening and Melvin Steinberg have made similar promises,
I find it difficult to believe that some of these candidates and members of Congress are serious about crime prevention, and I wonder about citizens who support them.
Do we really want to reduce crime? We have a greater percentage of our population in prison that almost any other country.
How can we seriously continue to approve spending $30,000 per person per year to house prisoners in an institution which has no great success in reforming them, and argue against spending much less per person on programs that might focus more seriously on making those who have broken the law into productive human beings?
I believe that law-breakers should be held responsible for the harm they do to individuals and to society.
But the punishment should focus on reforming the law-breaker, rather than act as an instrument to express our anger.
I recently finished Nathan McCall's book, "Makes Me Wanna Holler," about being a young black man raised in the ghetto of an American city.
The description of what Mr. McCall and his peers experienced in adolescent years in the slums left me marveling that more youths don't go to prison, get killed or get drugs.
As I think about how ready we seem to spend millions to put our youth in prison, rather than to see that they have good schools in which to become productive citizens, it makes me wanna holler for a just society more concerned about reclaiming human lives than using them as scapegoats on which to vent anger.
John Mote
Baltimore